In the 21st century, all the great powers of the world once again have acquired their own interest with their ambiguous foreign policy. The USA, Russia, China, and India are the major powers playing their key role in the “New Great Game” in Central Asian landmass and the strategic sea lanes of the world in the Indian Ocean where 90% of the world trade is being transported everyday including oil. It is this extension of the great game race is the reason the Trump administration dropped the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), also known as the mother of all bomb on Islamic State’s cave and tunnel systems in the Achin district of the Nangarhar Province in eastern Afghanistan on April 13 last month. While Lutz Kleveman (2003), argues that the Central Asia is increasingly becoming the most important geostrategic region for the future commodities, Michael Richardson (2004) on the other hand explains that the global economy depends on the free flow of shipping through the strategic international straits, waterways, and canals in the Indian Ocean.

Two third of the global maritime trade passes through a handful of relatively narrow shipping lanes, among which five geographic “chokepoints” or narrow channels that are gateway to and from Indian ocean: (1) Strait of Hormuz (2) Bab el-Mandab Passage (3) Palk Strait (4) Malacca and Singapore Straits and (5) Sunda Strait. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) report published in 2014, “world chokepoints for maritime transit of oil are a critical part of global energy security. About 63% of the world's oil production moves on maritime routes. The Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca are the world's most important strategic chokepoints by volume of oil transit” (p.1). These channels are critically important to the world trade because so much of it passes through them. For instance, half of the world’s oil production is moved by tankers through these maritime routes. Hence, the blockage of a chokepoint, even for a day, can lead to substantial increases in total energy costs and thus these chokepoints are critical part of global energy security.



In a recent analysis of globalization and its impact on Central Asia and Indian Ocean region, researcher Daniel Alphonsus (2015), notes that the twists and turns of political, economic and military turbulence were significant to all great players’ grand strategies: (1) the One Belt, One Road (OBOR), China’s anticipated strategy to increase connectivity and trade between Eurasian nations, a part of which is the future Maritime Silk Road (MSR), aimed at furthering collaboration between south east Asia, Oceania and East Africa; (2) Project Mausam, India’s struggle to reconnect with its ancient trading partners along the Indian Ocean, broadly viewed as its answer to the MSR; and (3) the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor, the USA’s effort to better connect south and south east Asian nations. India the superpower of the subcontinent, has long feared China's role in building outposts around its periphery. In a recent essay, an Indian commentator Brahma Chellaney wrote that the fusion of China's economic and military interests "risk turning Sri Lanka into India's Cuba" - a reference to how the Soviet Union courted Fidel Castro's Cuba right on the United States' doorstep. This is clearly evident how important the roles played by even the small nation states in the region vis-à-vis the New Great Game.

Great powers may set the agenda, but geopolitical illustrations are depending on the game the rest of the world play, and it is, in particular, the small states that will decide the fate of their strategies to rethink the new world order. It is against this backdrop one should view why the long term strategic 1000 Kg MOAB bomb killed three birds with one stone. That is while it sent a very strong implicit message to Pyongyang at a crucial point of time, it also echoed in Moscow and Tehran, who are covertly aiding and advising Afghan Taliban, according to a Washington D.C based Middle East Institute (2017), whereas the USA has a long term strategic interest in Central Asia, particularly in the Caspian Region. Thus, it is just another post-Cold War proxy wars between the USA, Russia, China and India in multiple fronts, which is part and parcel of "The New Great Game".

Source: Working Paper

My latest article on Neo-Cold War in the Indian Ocean Region:
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2018/10/1...n-ocean-region

In its first edition The Bridge magazine's compilation of articles about "Exploring the Belt and Road Initiative" analyzes one of the single most significant transnational geopolitical initiative undertaken by a country in this first half of the 21st century and perhaps beyond. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is much more than a simple Chinese political plan to push further economic development for its own domestic consumption.

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/product/the-bridge-01/

Originally Posted by Tuan

In its first edition The Bridge magazine's compilation of articles about "Exploring the Belt and Road Initiative" analyzes one of the single most significant transnational geopolitical initiative undertaken by a country in this first half of the 21st century and perhaps beyond. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is much more than a simple Chinese political plan to push further economic development for its own domestic consumption.

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/product/the-bridge-01/

Not sure how I feel about the BRI as I have a great deal of trouble in trusting China (or any of the major players) are doing anything that doesn't come with catches in the long term.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Not sure how I feel about the BRI as I have a great deal of trouble in trusting China (or any of the major players) are doing anything that doesn't come with catches in the long term.

Here is what a most knowledgeable scholar on the subject matter has to say:

https://youtu.be/f1vDRbDkazk

Intelligence dominance is the only way to adequately manage the threats that stem from China and Russia, argues Kagusthan Ariaratnam.

Combining Three Tiers of Intelligence-Gathering Is Key to Keeping Russia and China at Bay
https://thegeopolitics.com/combining...-china-at-bay/

Originally Posted by Tuan

Intelligence dominance is the only way to adequately manage the threats that stem from China and Russia, argues Kagusthan Ariaratnam.

Combining Three Tiers of Intelligence-Gathering Is Key to Keeping Russia and China at Bay
https://thegeopolitics.com/combining...-china-at-bay/

If intelligence is the key we are screwed as ever since Iraq Western intelligence has been on a downward spiral in terms of people trusting it, Trump is at war with his own intelligence agencies and I doubt the west in general has any faith in US intelligence at all.
Currently I would suggest that the west is a leaderless entity as the usual ones have either become laughing stocks or abdicated the role, given this circumstance it isn't hard to see why countries have turned to China and Russia for support.

Originally Posted by MontyB

If intelligence is the key we are screwed as ever since Iraq Western intelligence has been on a downward spiral in terms of people trusting it, Trump is at war with his own intelligence agencies and I doubt the west in general has any faith in US intelligence at all.
Currently I would suggest that the west is a leaderless entity as the usual ones have either become laughing stocks or abdicated the role, given this circumstance it isn't hard to see why countries have turned to China and Russia for support.

Good point, Monty! That's why politicians should not meddle into the spycraft of intelligence communities and hence national security and intelligence agencies must be independent of and superior to politics; nevertheless, I would argue that there should be a watchdog and appropriate oversight in place to monitor and inspect their operations.

Originally Posted by Tuan

Good point, Monty! That's why politicians should not meddle into the spycraft of intelligence communities and hence national security and intelligence agencies must be independent of and superior to politics; nevertheless, I would argue that there should be a watchdog and appropriate oversight in place to monitor and inspect their operations.

Not sure watchdogs are the answer either as they tend to stiffle operations and the more bureaucracy you have in place the less people trust them.

The problem is that the West no longer trusts it's administrative institutions it sees them as incompetent tools of the state and very few if any think their government is good for much, political parties are run by those that fund them and politicians are selected by the parties who promptly adhere to party dogma.

In its current form the west is on a par with 4th century Rome, only instead of bread and circus's we have fast food and reality TV.

What we need is a wholesale revamp of our politicians and the electoral processes that see these idiots and ideologues selected to run for office and the removal of this system where the people have to choose between the most palatable of two idiots foisted on them by out of touch political parties.

Is China creating a debt trap to rule the world?

The charge against China, in the West, is that it is deliberately using its Belt and Road projects to construct infrastructure in developing countries as neocolonial "debt traps", so that China can take over strategic assets, influence transnational policies, and thus rule the world. In 2019, the Rhodium Group, a New York-based consultancy, reviewed 40 cases of China's external debt renegotiations for Belt and Road (BRI) projects.

Key findings include: Debt renegotiations and distress among borrowing countries are common,and may increase in a few years as many Chinese projects were launched from 2013 to 2016, along with the loans to finance them - but asset seizures were a rare occurrence. Debt renegotiations usually involve a more balanced outcome between lender (China) and borrower (host country), ranging from extensions of loan terms and repayment deadlines to explicit refinancing, or partial or even total debt forgiveness.

Despite its economic weight, China's leverage in negotiations was shown to be limited. Many of the cases involved an outcome in favor of the borrower, a conclusion that undercuts various criticisms. It's the fallacy of using isolated cases to represent the whole.

Notwithstanding sensational stories in foreign media, burdening host countries with excessive debt is not China's strategy. It may be in the illicit interests of some companies working cozily with local officials in BRI host countries, but it is not at all in China's interests. Chinese authorities are now toughening standards and tightening controls. These are mid-course corrections - and China is especially good at making them. That's why China's four decades of reform and opening-up was astonishingly successful: start with bold, experimental projects, see what works and what doesn't, make changes, and roll them out further.

And that's why I deem it a positive sign that Belt and Road investments have declined in recent years. Long term success depends on planning, structuring and operating projects with highest standards of analysis, monitoring and controls. Let me lay out the flow of my argument. First, there is no empirical evidence that China has engaged in a debt strategy to entrap developing countries; in fact, the evidence supports the reverse. Second, it is natural for creditors to build protective covenants into commercial loans; this is well-accepted best practices.

Third, while it is true that specific projects have borne excessive debt, higher than could be supported whether due to inexperience, over exuberance, or corruption, these cases in no way reflect China's leaders' open intent or policy directives.

Fourth, recognizing the problem of heavy debt loads on poor host countries, China is now requiring more careful analysis and intense scrutiny of projects, especially their debt-carrying capabilities.

What China has learned from its remarkable domestic development, it is applying internationally, to the Belt and Road Initiative. The developing world benefits; the entire world benefits. But there are challenges.

I'm keeping watch. I'm Robert Lawrence Kuhn.

Scriptwriter: Robert Lawrence Kuhn

Cameraman: Morgan Compagnon, Conor Charles

Video editor: Hao Xinxin

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)